15:51:31 RRSAgent has joined #swd 15:51:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc 15:51:39 rrsagent, bookmark 15:51:39 See http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T15-51-39 15:51:57 rrsagent, please make record public 15:52:43 zakim, this will be swd 15:52:43 ok, TomB; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 15:52:50 Meeting: SWD WG 15:52:53 Chair: Tom 15:53:07 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0001.html 15:53:19 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html 15:53:29 Regrets: Daniel, Jon, Ben, Ed, Diego 15:55:36 regrets+ Quentin 15:56:23 SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started 15:56:30 +??P4 15:57:02 zakim, ??p4 is TomB 15:57:02 +TomB; got it 15:58:10 +Ralph 16:01:13 seanb has joined #swd 16:02:06 +??P37 16:02:39 zakim, ??p37 is TomB 16:02:39 +TomB; got it 16:02:43 -TomB.a 16:02:56 -TomB 16:03:05 aliman has joined #swd 16:04:05 +??P18 16:04:19 zakim, ??p18 is Alistair 16:04:19 +Alistair; got it 16:04:36 Antoine has joined #swd 16:04:44 +Tom_Baker 16:05:08 +??P9 16:05:14 Guus has joined #swd 16:05:23 zakim, ??p9 is Antoine 16:05:23 +Antoine; got it 16:05:29 zakim, please mute me 16:05:29 Tom_Baker should now be muted 16:05:49 please unmute me 16:05:54 +??P21 16:06:02 zakim, ??P21 is me 16:06:02 +seanb; got it 16:06:16 zakim, unmute tom 16:06:16 Tom_Baker should no longer be muted 16:07:29 scribe: Ralph 16:07:42 Topic: Admin 16:07:58 RESOLVED to accept minutes of the last telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html 16:08:06 next telecon in 2 weeks; 18 Nov 16:08:32 Topic: RDFa 16:08:48 ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02] 16:08:52 +??P44 16:09:07 -- continues 16:09:10 Topic: Recipes 16:09:37 [DONE] ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02] 16:10:04 Tom: let's wait for Diego and Jon to be at a telecon before taking up those proposals 16:10:16 -> @@ Diego's proposal 16:10:29 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] 16:10:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html 16:11:06 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html [Recipes] proposed resolution for remaing issues [Deigo 2008-11-03] 16:11:16 -??P44 16:11:31 Topic: SWD Review of OWL WDs 16:11:35 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:11:44 Topic: SKOS 16:12:12 Ben: I believe we resolved last telecon to close several issues per msg 222 16:12:19 s/Ben:/Tom: 16:12:29 Sean: we were waiting for responses from the commentors 16:12:42 [my phone is out of power, sorry] 16:14:11 Antoine: it might confuse the commenter if we close an issue before getting their response 16:14:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html 16:15:04 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html Alistair's review of 23 Oct issue proposals 16:15:27 Alistair: can we resolve a batch of issues as I propose in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html ? 16:15:44 Antoine: issue 134 should be included in your batch 16:15:59 PROPOSED: to resolve issues 140, 141, 146, 133, 134, 144, 145, 149, 150, 16:16:01 152, 162, 160, 171, 172, 178 and 180 (part 1) as described in 16:16:02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html 16:16:40 marghe has joined #swd 16:17:17 Antoine: I've read each one and am satisfied with the proposal 16:17:33 Sean: I'm happy with Alistair's proposal 16:17:41 +Margherita_Sini 16:18:12 GuusS has joined #swd 16:18:14 Antoine: for issue 160 I proposed to add an invitation to Doug to post something but OK to proceed 16:19:10 Alistair: in order: 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172 16:19:49 ... I propose to agree on the response to the comment 16:21:10 PROPOSED respond to issues 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172, 178, and the first part of 180 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html 16:21:34 Sean: if the commentors agree with our response then our resolution here is to close or pospone the respective issue 16:21:54 RESOLVED respond to issues 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172, 178, and the first part of 180 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html 16:22:38 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:22:51 [DONE] ACTION: Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01] 16:23:18 pls continue my action wrt Issue 186, will be completed this week 16:23:51 Antoine: I sent these proposals last week 16:24:23 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html ISSUE-181 new draft response 16:24:36 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html ISSUE-182 new draft response 16:24:49 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html ISSUE-183 new draft response 16:25:04 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html ISSUE-185 new draft response 16:25:18 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02] 16:25:25 [DONE]ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07] 16:25:29 [DONE] ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07] 16:25:38 Sean: see a slew of email on 22 October 16:25:49 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html ISSUE-184 new draft 16:26:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html 16:26:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0270.html -> draft response on 151 16:26:48 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/151 issue 151; skos:member definition 16:27:26 Alistair: none of the commentors have demanded a range but Jeremy has noted that there is an effective range 16:27:40 ... I propose to not explicitly define a range 16:28:23 Ii;ve made progress in reviewing OWL docs, and talked to Ian at ISWC about timing SWD comments 16:28:32 ... I can live with either approach (defining or not defining) 16:28:46 Antoine: I'm rather in favor of defining a range 16:28:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0290.html 16:29:11 Sean: Antoine has arguments for including a range, not seeing arguments against it 16:29:25 Alistair: the argument against is to leave flexibility 16:29:35 Antoine: in the case of collections, I think we gain from adding constraints 16:29:53 Sean: we've included ranges in other places, so why the need for flexibility here? 16:30:19 ... for consistency in the text, make it clear that collections are collections of concepts 16:30:40 Alistair: the original document did not say "collections *of concepts*"; it only said "collections" 16:31:07 ... there are other cases of flexiblity; e.g. no domain for @@ 16:31:19 s/@@/skos:inScheme/ 16:31:20 ... we've not chosen to have domains and/or ranges for everything 16:32:23 Tom: coherence of specs, coherence of data all sound good but I don't think anything is harmed by leaving it unspecified 16:32:58 Ralph: I hear Antoine saying it would be useful 16:34:29 PROPOSED: we define the range of skos:member as the union of of skos:Concept and skos:Collection 16:34:44 s/of of/of/ 16:35:00 RESOLVED: we define the range of skos:member as the union of skos:Concept and skos:Collection 16:35:28 Alistair: I'll redraft and send the response 16:35:46 -- issue 180 16:35:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0282.html 16:35:58 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/180 issue 180 16:36:08 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/180 issue 180; PFWG: skosxl:Label class 16:36:17 Alistair: this is about the extensibility of the vocabulary 16:36:39 ... PFWG would like to extend the xl:Label class to be able to specify labels in other modalities 16:36:55 ... e.g. in other markup languages; MathML, etc. 16:37:08 ... currently we require that every instance of xl:Label have a plain literal form 16:38:07 ... should we relax this restriction, e.g. from "exactly one [plain literal form]" to "at most one"? 16:39:12 Tom: I prefer solution 1, our current solution 16:39:43 Alistair: saying "at most one" would still permit "dumbing-down" 16:40:08 Antoine: do both really support dumbing-down? 16:40:21 Alistair: if there is no plain literal form then there are no entailments 16:40:32 GuusSch has joined #swd 16:40:39 Antoine: so SKOSXL might not provide data that is compatible with standard SKOS tools 16:41:34 Alistair: correct, but the PFWG scenarios do not provide data useable by standard SKOS tools and we wouldn't want those tools to dumb-down 16:42:17 Antoine: I prefer option 1; live with the current XL data model 16:42:30 ... this is consistent with our resolution on symbolic labels, which is related 16:42:39 +1 with Antoine - go with option 1 16:43:24 Ralph: I suspect that if we keep the restriction and folks find good reason to violate it the world won't fall apart :) 16:43:35 Alistair: I may hold you to this at some point in the future :) 16:43:52 Antoine: I can see a use for more than one resource form attached to a label 16:44:24 PROPOSED: retain the current XL data model; make no change to the restriction on xl:label 16:44:33 RESOLVED: retain the current XL data model; make no change to the restriction on xl:label 16:44:47 s/:label/:Label 16:44:56 -- issue 181 16:45:23 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html ISSUE-181 new draft response [Antoine 2008-10-22] 16:45:59 Antoine: this is about what might be allowed to be introduced in concept schemes 16:46:07 ... there was a requirement that we dropped 16:46:21 ... we discussed this in issue 48 and dropped the indexing 16:46:32 ... I propose a practice to solve the issue in specific cases 16:46:56 ... I suggested to Michael to consider proposing a practice 16:47:03 Alistair: I'm happy with Antoine's response 16:47:40 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/181 issue 181; Non Assignable Concepts 16:47:58 Tom: I'm happy with the response as drafted 16:48:01 -- issue 182 16:48:13 Antoine: the problem here is to attach classes to concepts 16:48:21 ... would look a bit like indexing 16:48:22 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html ISSUE-182 new draft response 16:48:56 ... I propose to make no change but again suggest a practice that could be used 16:49:33 Alistair: could we say that this be resolveed within a community of practice without giving specific practices? 16:49:43 ... Michael is effectively proposing some extensions 16:50:03 ... could we say that we agree these are important areas and that we look forward to proposed practices from the community? 16:50:28 ... we look forward to seeing this requirement addressed by third-party extensions 16:50:44 ... noting that Michael's suggestions might be good candidates for such third-party extensions 16:50:55 Antoine: so use the word 'extension' explicitly in the response? 16:51:11 Alistair: yes, this requirement is out of scope for SKOS but can be dealt with by extensions 16:51:30 ... be more positive; we acknowledge that this is an important requirement 16:51:49 Tom: could have boilerplate text, as this comes up in a number of cases 16:52:11 Alistair: yes, I've tried to be consistent in the language I use 16:52:29 Antoine: I'd be happy for Alistair's help in drafting the language of the response 16:52:59 ACTION: Antoine post new draft response for issue 182 16:53:44 drop action 2 16:54:15 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html ISSUE-183 new draft response 16:54:16 Antoine: I just need to reformulate the last paragraph of the responses for issues 181 and 182 16:54:57 RESOLVED: close issue 182 without changing the specification 16:55:30 -- issue 183 16:55:41 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html ISSUE-183 new draft response 16:55:54 Antoine: this was a case of a classification scheme and a concept scheme co-existing 16:56:17 ... I suggest this is an unusual use case and that we not try to adapt the SKOS standard to handle this 16:57:08 ... and again note a possible practice for using SKOS classes and concepts, suggesting Michael use that practice if it is useful 16:57:23 Alistair: I try to word my responses to avoid stimulating a long conversation 16:57:47 ... try to elicit a "yes, I can live with the Group's decision" response 16:58:59 Antoine: I can extract the essential details 16:59:15 Tom: sounds like we agree on the substance, though 16:59:51 Antoine: I felt that this commentor really wanted to be convinced that a solution could be found 17:00:38 Tom: shall we leave it to Antoine's discretion? 17:00:41 Alistair: sure 17:00:59 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html ISSUE-184 new draft 17:01:05 -- issue 184 17:01:45 Antoine: Michael objected that skos:notation wouldn't handle the case 17:01:51 ... I gave an example of using private notations 17:02:21 ... so the response is long just to illustrate the solution 17:03:08 Alistair: the core of the response is that we acknowledge the utility of the case but that it's out of scope for SKOS 17:03:16 Antoine: however, SKOS can do what he wants 17:03:29 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html ISSUE-185 new draft response 17:03:41 -- issue 185 17:04:14 Antoine: the commentor wanted a way to distinguish order of children 17:05:03 ... my proposed response is that we did not have a use case for this and that ordering is difficult to express in RDF 17:05:14 ... an alternative is to use ordered collections 17:06:12 Alistair: we could also refer to a previous issue where we resolved that capturing all of the information one might want to display is out of scope 17:06:22 ... some parallel coding might be necessary 17:06:32 Antoine: have we discussed ordering for systematic display? 17:06:56 Alistair: not, but we agreed that SKOS does not have to capture all the information needed for a systematic display 17:08:27 PROPOSE: we accept Antoine's proposed responses for issues 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185 with stylistic adjustments at Antoine's discretion 17:08:55 RESOLVED: we accept Antoine's proposed responses for issues 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185 with stylistic adjustments at Antoine's discretion 17:09:26 Alistair: so Antoine will post the responses to the commentor when he's ready 17:09:29 [adjourned] 17:09:34 -seanb 17:09:39 -Alistair 17:09:41 -Antoine 17:09:53 -Ralph 17:09:55 -Tom_Baker 17:09:56 marghe has left #swd 17:10:00 -Margherita_Sini 17:10:02 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 17:10:03 Attendees were TomB, Ralph, Alistair, Tom_Baker, Antoine, seanb, Margherita_Sini 17:10:09 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:10:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:11:23 thanks all, best wishes for good outcome to US election tonight :) 17:11:28 :) 17:29:58 zakim, bye 17:29:58 Zakim has left #swd 17:30:00 rrsagent, bye 17:30:00 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-actions.rdf : 17:30:00 ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02] [1] 17:30:00 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T16-08-48 17:30:00 ACTION: Antoine post new draft response for issue 182 [2] 17:30:00 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T16-52-59